INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT —

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber

Review commenced at: 8:45 AM (Time), 09/16 /99 (Date)

o ° 7

File#: 95-243506

Laboratory A(s): 10608001

Examiner(s) & Symbols ‘ _ Reviewed Not Reviewed : : soe Reviewed Not Reviewéd RG a. esa a x.

aw o °°. X NM

SQ ; ge x TT a co

. Materials Reviewed - Trial testimony transcript(s) of:. Michael Malone (two-transcripts) Testimony Date(s): 1982; 1983 , Pages: 227-241;.221-241 : y : —————— ce eee mmmam Laboratory Report(s): ° Laboratory Number: 10608001 Date: Jul-15, 1981 —— ee pe Ti ete Laboratory Number: . 4 Date: ft ee a Laboratory‘Number: . - : Date: a .

_——_——

Examirier Bench Notes of:. RQ and unknown technician(s)

. Laboratory Number: 10608001

Page

"of 3 : Initials: Stel Pe

. G Transcript not available,

Was any other materialteviewed? Yes

If-yes, please identify and/or describe the material:

Results of Review

File # 95-243506 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: 4G, Q34-Q35, Q37-Q38,

Q40-Q57,-Q59, Q65-Q66, Q69-Q72, Q75- 982, Q88-Q91, Q94-Q98, QI01- Q102, Qi04: -Q106, QU12- Q114, K3-

Ka, KS-KN

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes: Note: Numbered comments are required below or on

‘additional pages for any‘ "No" or “Unable to Determine" Responses

Did the examiner perform-the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the *

mation protocols, and analytic techniques available at'the time of the original examination(s)? GYes No inable to Determine

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory repgrt(s) supported and adequately documented in. - the bench mptes? "oO Yes. No 9 penal) to Determine.’

Review of Testimony:”

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any "No" or.'"Unable to. Determine" Responses

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory ‘eport(s)? dyes ONo Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

% dNo ’ Unable to Determine Ye

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? Yes No Unable to Determine

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use "Additional Comnients" Sheet, if needed)

File# ~ 95-243506

Fa pen

#1. There is insufficient doctimentation to determine if the hair comparison was performed in a scientifically “acceptable mariner. ‘

“#2. The results are not adequately documented i in the notes. The notes me not dated, are in pencil and have :

some erasures: ‘Some hair were: ‘deemed unsuitable with no documented Teason or explanation. The ~

‘examiner uses abbreviations that-are diffi icult to interpret. Some questioned hair were matched or eliminated as

coming from the known: samples without characterization of the microscopic characteristics observed in these

“_ questioried or’ known hair. The technicians do not: document the recovery of any hair from, the’ questioned items.

#4, In the 1982 transcript, the. examiner testifi ies "T processed", "T found", "I examined’, "t ‘yemoved" when its

more likely thé- technicians processed _ pee the questioned hair from the items. °

Review cornpleted at: | 10:15 AM, (Time), 097) 16/ 99 : (Date)

Total time spent conducting review “(to Seaiest 14 at y a hour): ms / z heuss

I hereby ity that'l conducted this review in an independent,, uupbissed manner and that the results of my review are fully. documented on this a consisting of a. total. of _ _. pages. sou